Impact of Proposal Award and Management Mechanisms IPAMM

Impact of Proposal and Award Management Mechanisms Report Advisory Committee Discussions Joanne Tornow Chair, IPAMM Working Group February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 1 What is the Context? □ Between FY 2000-2005: □ The NSF budget increased by 44%. □ The average size of research awards increased by 41%. □ Research proposal submissions increased by nearly 50%. □ NSF budget increases were absorbed by the growth in the average award size, leaving little flexibility to respond to growing proposal submissions. As a result, the research proposal funding rate decreased by 29%, from 30% to 21%. □ Directorate level trends show significant variability in rate of change, degree of change, and starting and end points of change. February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 2 Findings: Causal Factors □ The increase in proposal submissions was due to an increased applicant pool and to an increased number of proposals per applicant. □ Increased size and capacity of the research community □ Loss of funding from other sources □ Increased use by NSF of targeted solicitations in new areas □ External institutional pressures IPAMM Report February 25, 2008 3 Solicited vs. Unsolicited Proposal Trends 35% 30% 25% 20,000 Funding Rate 20% 15,000 15% 10,000 10% 5% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 Fiscal Year Unsolicited Proposals NSF Funding Rate 2004 2005 Solicited Funding Rate 5,000 30,000 25,000 Number of Proposals 0 Solicited Proposals Unsolicited Funding Rate February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 4 Key Findings: Goal 1, Drivers External Institutional Pressures Beyond the goal of making contributions to your area of science, to what extent do the following factors motivate you to submit research proposals to any funding source? 70% 63.50% 60% Question 23: Building/maintaining a grant record for academic tenure/ promotion Question 24: Contributing to the institution’s research status/reputation Question 25: Supplementing or paying my own salary Question 26: Building/maintaining a research infrastructure 50% 40% Percent 34.90% 38.40% 30% 26.00% 24.20% 30.10% 25.80% 22.10% 28.50% 26.80% 20% 18.80% 16.80% 12.10% 16.80% 10% 5.20% 9.00% 0% To No Extent To a Small Extent Question 23 Question 24 To a Moderate Extent Question 25 To a Great Extent Question 26 February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 5 Findings: Impacts on Quality and Nature of Proposed Research □ Proportion of highly-rated proposals has not declined, however, the funding rate of highlyrated proposals has decreased □ Analyzed attitudinal data to assess community perceptions about transformative research: □ 56% believe to a great or moderate extent that NSF welcomes transformative research □ NSF is the predominant choice for submitting proposals with transformative research ideas □ Significant disconnect between proposer and reviewer perceptions about prevalence of transformative projects IPAMM Report February 25, 2008 6 Findings: Impacts on Specific Groups □ The decrease in funding rate has not had a disproportionate effect on women, minorities, beginning PIs, or PIs at particular types of institutions. □ Funding rates □ Share of proposal and award portfolios □ Maintaining funding beyond first award □ Years between degree and first award February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 7 Findings: Impacts on Merit Review □ NSF’s peer review system is overstressed □ Reviewer workloads have increased □ Reviewer pool increased 15%, proposal load increased 50% □ Increased use of panel-only review □ Time spent on each review, as well as the thoroughness and quality of reviews, may be diminishing (based on survey data) □ Timeliness of proposal decisions did not decline, however PIs are increasingly dissatisfied with turnaround time February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 8 Community Perceptions About Funding Rates □ More than 60% of survey respondents perceive that the level of competition at NSF is more intense than at other agencies. □ Most survey respondents underestimated actual funding rates. □ Nearly 49% of respondents estimate funding rates at 10% or lower. February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 9 How to Improve Funding Rates? □ Limit Proposal Submissions □ Increase Number of Awards February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 10 Limit Proposal Submissions □ Most funding opportunities do not limit submissions □ Of those that do, three primary mechanisms are used: □ Preliminary proposals □ Limiting proposals submitted by an institution □ Limiting proposals by individual February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 11 Limit Proposal Submissions □ Institution limits primarily used for solicitations focused on infrastructure and instrumentation, centers and facilities, or education and training. □ When submission limits are used by research programs, primarily limit submissions by PI. February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 12 Increase Number of Awards □ Primarily accomplished by increasing availability of funds: □ Two fiscal years of funds used for a single competition □ Adjustments made to the balance of standard and continuing grants □ Provides some flexibility in responding to increased proposal submissions, but can only be employed for a limited time, and with discretion February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 13 IPAMM Recommendations to NSF □ Focus on developing strategies that are appropriate within the context of each unit, that balance longterm planning with the ability to respond to changing needs, and that help break the decline-reviseresubmit cycle for highly fundable proposals □ Improve communications with internal and external communities □ Update the IPAMM trends analyses annually, and periodically reassess the practices and policies of the directorates/research offices. February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 14 □ When implementing new management practices □ About sources of accurate NSF data Current Status □ NSF Senior Management currently engaged in discussions of recommendations □ Implementation initiated on some recommendations □ Reaching out to NSF staff to discuss the findings of the report □ Reaching out to external communities to begin a dialogue on the implications of the report □ Alerted the NSF community about the report □ Discussed issues with the Federal Demonstration Partnership □ Engaging the Advisory Committees this Fall IPAMM Report February 25, 2008 15 February 25, 2008 “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.” IPAMM Report --John Muir 16 Acknowledgements IPAMM Members Joanne Tornow, Chair, O/D Paul Herer, Executive Secretary, O/D Rita Teutonico (03/06 to 10/06) and Paul Malchow (11/06 to 08/07), BIO Suzi Iacono, CISE Daniel Litynski, EHR Adnan Akay, ENG Jarvis Moyers, GEO William Rundell (03/06 to 09/06) and Deborah Lockhart (10/06 to 08/07), MPS Jacqueline Meszaros, SBE Jeanne Hudson, OISE Neil Swanberg, OPP Vernon Ross, BFA Expert Resources: Emily Fort, BFA Robert Groves, Chair, SBE AC, and Director, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan Brent Miller, AAAS Fellow, BIO Jeri Mulrow, SBE Louie Rivers, SBE Kelli Savia, BFA Beth Ann Velo, BFA Booz Allen Hamilton Survey Team: George Angerbauer, Michael Carrieri, Pat Corrigan, Mary Kay Gibbons, Chris Johnson, Keisha Kelly, and Luke Monck February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 17 Back-Up Slides February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 18 Research Proposal Funding Rate Drops as NSF Budget Increases $6,000 Millions of Current Year Dollars $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 35% 30% Funding Rate 19 25% 20% 15% $2,000 $1,000 $0 10% 5% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 3,298.3,425.3,690. 3,923.4,459.4,774.5,369.5,652. 5,480.5,645. 30% 30% 30% 30% 27% 27% 24% 21% 20% 21% IPAMM Report 0% NSF Budget Funding Rate February 25, 2008 R&RA Budget 2,433.2,572.2,821. 2,979.3,372.3,616.4,054.4,293. 4,234.4,351. Data Sources □ Statistical data □ NSF data on proposal funding rates, PI success rates, budget data, demographic data □ Science and Engineering Indicators □ 2007 NSF Proposer Survey developed with Booz Allen Hamilton □ Focus groups of new rotators, COV reports, discussions with Advisory Committees and the National Science Board IPAMM Report 20 □ Attitudinal data □ Other input February 25, 2008 Directorate Funding Rate Trends 40% 40% 35% 35% 30% 30% 25% 25% Funding Rate 20% 20% 15% 10% SBE CISE GEO ENG BIO NSF MPS 15% 10% 5% 5% 0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0% Fiscal Year February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report Funding Rate 21 Directorate Proposal Submission Trends 7,000 7,000 6,000 6,000 Number of Competitive Proposals 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 3,000 3,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 MPS SBE CISE GEO BIO ENG 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1,000 0 0 Fiscal Year February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report Number of Competitive Proposals 22 Funding Rate Trends for New and Prior PIs in Underrepresented Groups 40% 40% 35% Prior PIs 35% 30% 30% 25% 25% Funding Rate 20% 20% 15% New Male Prior Male New Female Prior Female New Non-Minority Prior Non-Minority New Minority Prior Minority 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 New PIs 15% 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0% Fiscal Year February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 23 Funding Rate Trends in Use of Submission Limitations A. Trends in the Use of Submission Limitations by Institution Number of Solictations 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Active** Issued 2003 20 10 2004 15 15 2005 27 27 2006 39 28 2007* 33 20 February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 24 Trends in Use of Submission Limitations B. Trends in the Use of Submission Limitations by PI 60 Number of Solicitations 50 40 30 20 10 0 Active** Issued 2003 10 3 2004 6 4 2005 13 20 2006 30 27 2007* 58 35 February 25, 2008 IPAMM Report 25